-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[CWS] skip raw packet event when no process context #31429
Conversation
ec57f54
to
2ff516f
Compare
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 49889749 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help |
@@ -63,8 +63,10 @@ __attribute__((always_inline)) struct packet_t *reset_packet() { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
__attribute__((always_inline)) void fill_network_process_context(struct process_context_t *process, struct packet_t *pkt) { | |||
process->pid = pkt->pid; | |||
process->tid = pkt->pid; | |||
if (pkt->pid >= 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we reset pid/tid to 0 if not ? Network events are often generated from a PERCPU array entry, I'm worried "not writing" anything would keep garbage data from a previous packet.
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 88729a6 Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +10.94 | [+7.26, +14.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.18 | [+0.13, +0.22] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.14 | [+0.05, +0.24] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.62, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.66, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.78, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.11, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.65, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.87, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.15 | [-0.92, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.27 | [-0.73, +0.19] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.38 | [-0.44, -0.32] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.88 | [-1.02, -0.74] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.36 | [-2.06, -0.65] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -3.35 | [-7.10, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
- ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
- ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
- ➖ = no significant change in performance
A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".
For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
2ff516f
to
67ed721
Compare
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Do not forward rawpacket event to userspace when there is no process context. This should limit the performance impact. We'll remove this limitation later.
Motivation
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Functional tests should still pass
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes